I just want to know: Is all this WiFi, Cell Phone and Cell Tower radiation safe, or are they causing some or all of my health problems? And what about other super high powered sources of EMF, like military radar? Why is getting to the truth so hard on this topic? I want specific testable falsifiable details, nitty gritty science, but this is not being presented, by either side, at least at first glance.
Scientists Express Concern
In 2015, a group of 190 scientists from 39 nations submitted an appeal to the United Nations, UN member states, and the World Health Organization (WHO) requesting the adoption of more protective exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless technology[1]. The scientists were engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing EMF[3]. The appeal was based on peer-reviewed, published research and raised concerns about the increasing exposure to EMF generated by devices such as cellular and cordless phones, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, and smart meters[5].
The scientists called for the following actions:
– Strengthening of international exposure guidelines for electromagnetic fields to reflect the risks, especially for our DNA[5].
– Assessing the health risks associated with EMF exposure in line with the science demonstrating risk[5].
– Resolving the inconsistency between the UN’s current advisories on EMF risk for humans and the actual scientific understanding of the risks[5].
The International EMF Alliance has begun to collect endorsements of the appeal from non-profit organizations around the world[5]. The scientists’ efforts aim to raise awareness about the potential dangers of non-ionizing electromagnetic field exposure and to push for more protective measures to minimize the risks.
Here we only have “potential dangers” but let’s start there. Why, very specifically, are there potential dangers?
A Very Specific Detail and Background
Non-ionizing radiation like visible light and WiFi does not knock electrons off of atoms as ionizing radiation does, but it still does have biological effects. If it didn’t, if visible light did not cause significant changes in bio-molecules, you could not see. Vision works by non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation causing changes in molecules within the cones of the eye. Non-ionizing radiation causes increased activation energies of molecules that it touches, in other words, it can bump electrons up into higher energy shells around atoms, making them more likely to participate in chemical reactions. This is one specific atomic basis for biological changes which concern scientists about potential dangers.
FDA: No Credible Evidence
The FDA, however, without convincing the concerned scientists, stated that there is not credible evidence of danger, citing themselves and the WHO as experts. From the FDA’s web site:
According to the FDA and the World Health Organization (WHO), among other organizations, to date, there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of health problems caused by the exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones. The FDA further states that “the weight of the scientific evidence does not support an increase in health risks from radio frequency exposure from cell phone use at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC” (see fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/scientific-evidence-cell-phone-safety).
Rebuttal: 30 Years of Research
The rebuttal to this is the claim by the FDA that there is not credible evidence of danger is the claim that 30 years of research shows significant effects.
Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: Thirty years of research. The preponderance of research published from 1990 through July 2023 has found significant effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation as well as to extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields[7].
The website saferemr.com presents a compilation of over 2,000 studies on the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF), including radio frequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones and other wireless devices, as well as extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields[7].
The website claims that the preponderance of research published from 1990 through July 2023 has found significant effects from exposure to EMF, including RFR and ELF, on biological processes and health outcomes.
FDA: Specific Absorption Rate Is Confusing and That’s Good
Read this statement on SAR values used to describe RF safety. Do you do a double take at the double speak?
“There is considerable confusion and misunderstanding about the meaning of the maximum reported Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values for cell phones (and other wireless devices). SAR is a measure of the rate of RF (radiofrequency) energy absorption by the body from the source being measured – in this case, a cell phone. SAR provides a straightforward means for measuring the RF exposure characteristics of cell phones to ensure that they are within the safety guidelines set by the FCC.
Emphasis added. How else can I read this? The more I looked into SAR the more confusing it became, with the testing protocols being very detached from actual human tissues of various kinds and actual exposures. Is this a case of “Purposeful bad tests as authoritative proof”?
What SAR Safety Tests (Purposefully?) Miss About RF Safety
The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) safety tests, which measure the rate at which the body absorbs radio frequency (RF) energy, focus on the thermal effects of RF exposure and are designed to prevent excessive heating of tissue. However, some studies and experts have raised concerns that SAR tests do not capture all potential health risks associated with RF exposure, particularly non-thermal effects. The preponderance of research published from 1990 through July 2023 has found significant effects from exposure to RF radiation, as well as to extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields[7]. Some studies have reported non-thermal biological effects, such as oxidative stress and damaged DNA, from RF exposure[8]. Additionally, the SAR tests may not fully account for real-life exposure scenarios, including the effects of waveform modulations during wireless communication usage[7].
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that RF exposures at or below current safety limits do not cause health problems[10], some scientists and organizations have recommended further research and measures to reduce exposure to RF energy based on the findings of studies that have reported significant effects from RF exposure[6][7]. The debate surrounding the adequacy of SAR tests in capturing all potential health risks from RF exposure reflects the ongoing scientific inquiry into this complex issue.
When Scientists Disagree, Do Your Own Study
Why doesn’t the FDA just show the world a bunch of studies that prove there are no non-thermal effects? Perhaps because they know there are effects. What a crazy situation we have as consumers, with the safety truth supposedly in doubt but the rollout of new RF (including 5G) ramrodding full speed ahead to cover every inch of the human livable globe.
If you are a person having terrible symptoms for years that no doctors can figure out, you might try getting a meter (problem is, none measure all frequencies in use), shielding your home (expensive and how can you tell if it worked without a meter?), or moving to a place with less EMF radiation, which is hard with 5G satellites starting to cover every inch of the USA, and besides, there isn’t a meter you can use to see if you have really gotten away. What a messed up situation this is!
Goal: Figure out how to block EMF from 0.01 to 400 GHz for sensitivity testing. Leave a comment if you have any ideas or leads on a 5G RF spectrum analyzer under $1000.
Summary
The dangers of electromagnetic fields used in telecommunications on human health are debated, with the debate hinging on credible evidence. The details of what counts and does not count as credible evidence may remain hidden for the most part, due to various reasons including a general public lack of science literacy.
Citations:
[1] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150511005200/en/International-Scientists-Appeal-to-U.N.-to-Protect-Humans-and-Wildlife-from-Electromagnetic-Fields-and-Wireless-Technology
[2] https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10724014163217/5
[3] https://mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/EJOEH/article/view/4971
[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298533689_International_Appeal_Scientists_call_for_protection_from_non-ionizing_electromagnetic_field_exposure
[5] https://www.saferemr.com/2019/07/international-scientist-appeal-on.html?m=1
[6] https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
[7] https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html
[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701402/
[10] https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/reducing-radio-frequency-exposure-cell-phones
[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6685799/
[12] https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0
[13] https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless_devices_and_health_concerns.pdf
[14] https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety
